Freedom of Information Act 2000

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many requests for information made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the first month of its operation were responded to with holding answers.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Government departments collect information on those freedom of information (FOI) requests which are referred to their central practitioners for consideration. Departments are required to monitor such requests and provide details of how they have been dealt with, including information on the number of cases where a holding reply has been sent to extend the 20-day deadline for consideration of the public interest, to my department on a quarterly basis. My department will publish its first report on these statistics in late Spring 2005 and copies will be placed in the House Libraries.
	Statistics on the number of times the 20-day deadline has been extended for consideration of the public interest by all public authorities are not held centrally. However, of those requests referred to the FOI practitioner within my department, which were due for answer by 1 February, the deadline was extended in one case to consider the public interest.

HM Belmarsh Prison: Detainees

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why they did not try to reach an agreement with the Governments of Algeria and Tunisia concerning the treatment of their citizens detained in HM Belmarsh Prison in the event of their return to those countries, when they were first arrested under the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Our assessment at the time the legislation was introduced was that we were unlikely to be able to obtain undertakings which would enable removals to proceed in the face of a legal challenge.
	We have since revised this assessment, and have been pursuing for some time the possibility of establishing framework agreements—of the sort contemplated by the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, in its report published in December 2003—intended to pave the way for agreements to return specific individuals.
	These discussions are still continuing.

Support Vehicle Project

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What percentage of the Ministry of Defence support vehicle contract will be spent outside the United Kingdom.

Lord Bach: I refer the noble Lord to the Answer that I gave him on 17 November 2004 (Official Report, col. WA 172). Negotiations are still ongoing with MAN ERF UK Ltd, the preferred bidder in the support vehicle project. The company has made a commitment to assemble the vehicles in the UK and to source a range of assemblies in the UK, but until negotiations are complete, it would be neither appropriate nor feasible to provide a definitive figure.

Hyde Park

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many motorists have received penalties for parking on double yellow lines on the north carriageway of Hyde Park during the hour before the end of the congestion charge period on weekday evenings.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Only two tickets have been issued for parking on the double yellow lines in North Carriage Drive in the past year at any time of day.

Lloyd's Names

Lord Desai: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What powers they have, under the Insurance Companies Act 1982, or other legislation, to enable the Secretary of State to require assets of Names at Lloyd's, or Names whose Lloyd's liabilities have been reinsured into Equitas, to be placed in a trust if either Lloyd's or Equitas were unable to meet claims of policyholders when such claims have been upheld in the courts of the United States.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Insurance Companies Act 1982 was repealed in 2001 and insurance undertakings are now regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The Act placed responsibility for the regulation of insurance undertakings with the Financial Services Authority. Such powers as there are to take action in relation to the assets of Names and former Names are therefore with the FSA, the independent regulator, under Part XIX of the Act and not with the Government.

Civil Servants: Work on Legislation

Lord Addington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many civil servants, broken down by grade, worked on (a) the Licensing Bill 2003; (b) the Communications Bill 2003; (c) the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill 2004; and (d) the Gambling Bill; before each was introduced to Parliament.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The table shows the staff breakdown by grade for each Bill. 1
	
		
			  Licensing Communications2 Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Gambling 
			 SCS 3 4 3 2 
			 Grade A 4 21 4 7 
			 Grade B 2 15 2 7 
			 Grade C 8 3 2 3 
			 Grade D 2  2 3 
		
	
	1 Staff would have worked on these Bills for differing amounts of time over the whole period. The figures are not broken down into the proportion of time each member of staff worked on a Bill, but represent the total number of staff working, in some part, on the Bill over the period. All staff would be undertaking other work in parallel. Legal staff are included in these figures, excluding parliamentary counsel. It must be noted that other staff within these and other departments, notably within private offices, parliamentary branches and press offices, would also have made some contribution to the process but these are not included in the figures.
	2 The Communications Bill was developed jointly between DCMS and DTI. DTI figures have been included.

Civil Servants: Work on Legislation

Lord Addington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many civil servants, broken down by grade, worked on (a) the Licensing Bill 2003; (b) the Communications Bill 2003; (c) the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill 2004; and (d) the Gambling Bill; during the period that each was considered in Parliament.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The table shows the staff breakdown by grade for each Bill. 1
	
		
			  Licensing Communications2 Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Gambling 
			 SCS 3 5 2 2 
			 Grade A 6 25 5 7 
			 Grade B 2 18 2 5 
			 Grade C 8 3 2 3 
			 Grade D 2 1 2 3 
			 Trainees 2
		
	
	1 Staff would have worked on these Bills for differing amounts of time over the whole period. The figures are not broken down into the proportion of time each member of staff worked on a Bill, but represent the total number of staff working, in some part, on the Bill over the period. All staff would be undertaking other work in parallel. Legal staff are included in these figures, excluding parliamentary counsel. It must be noted that other staff within these and other departments, notably within private offices, parliamentary branches and press, offices, would also have made some contribution to the process but these are not included in the figures.
	2 The Communications Bill was developed jointly between DCMS and DTI. DTI figures have been included.

Civil Servants: Work on Legislation

Lord Addington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many civil servants, broken down by grade, worked on- (a) the Licensing Act 2003; (b) the Communications Act 2003; and (c) the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004; since Royal Assent.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The table shows the staff breakdown by grade for each Act. 1
	
		
			  Licensing Communications2 Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery3 
			 SCS 4 4 2 
			 Grade A 7 21 4 
			 Grade B 3 15 2 
			 Grade C 8 3 2 
			 Grade D 4  1 
			 Trainees 4   
		
	
	1 Staff would have worked on these Acts for differing amounts of time over the whole period. The figures are not broken down into the proportion of time each member of staff worked on an Act, but represent the total number of staff working, in some part, on the Act over the period. All staff would be undertaking other work in parallel. Legal staff are included in these figures. It must be noted that other staff within these and other departments, notably within private offices, parliamentary branches and press offices, would also have made some contribution to the process but these are not included in the figures.
	2 The Communications Act was developed jointly between DCMS and DTI. DTI figures have been included.
	3 Includes staff needed in the implementation of the Act including the sale of the Tote and abolition of the Horserace Betting Levy.

Northern Ireland: Digital Television

Lord Kilclooney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the proposed timetable for the introduction of digital television in Northern Ireland; whether this timetable is dependent upon progress on the introduction of digital television in the Republic of Ireland; whether there is co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Republic on its introduction; and what attempts they are making to persuade the Ulster Television Company of the merits of the early introduction of digital television in Northern Ireland.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No firm dates for switchover have been set, but Ofcom has suggested an indicative date of 2011 for the Ulster region. The final decision on timing is a matter for the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The sequence is determined by technical factors and the order is generally expected to stay as advised by Ofcom.
	In regions close to neighbouring countries, it is very important to co-ordinate with the relevant foreign authorities. This is routinely being done for the Republic of Ireland.
	Discussions with Ulster TV on switchover issues are a matter for Ofcom.

Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel categorised cases 01/005/03, 13/006/03, 17/012/03, 03/036/03 and 07/037/03 as "not classified as an incident" when they were reported to the Health and Safety Executive; and when ill health relating to a pesticide was alleged in these cases.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The objective of the Pesticide Incident Appraisal Panel and the principle of case assessment were set out in my Written Answer on 24 January 2005 (WA 141).
	For the panel to accept a case as an ill health incident there needs to be a clearly defined incident, investigated by HSE (or a local authority), together with associated ill health. Each individual case is discussed by the panel, within the framework published in the annual Pesticide Incident Report, until there is consensus. Details of these discussions are not directly relevant to the panel objectives and not recorded.
	The five investigations listed included the assessment of 10 individual cases. For eight of the individual cases the panel concluded that there was no discrete event linked to a specific pesticide exposure. For two of the individual cases the panel concluded that the alleged ill health was unrelated to any exposure and the two incidents involving these individuals were assessed as "unrelated".

Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why, when 11 railway track workers were allegedly exposed to pesticides while working together on tracks close to a field, the Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel categorised four of the workers' cases as "insufficient information" while the other seven cases were classified as "confirmed" or "likely".

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The objective of the Pesticide Incident Appraisal Panel and the principle of case assessment were set out in my Written Answer on 24 January 2005 (WA 141).
	Individual cases will be categorised as "insufficient information" where there are no data properly to assess either the exposure or the ill health. This includes where there is no clear route of exposure, known documents or medical reports are unavailable and where symptoms are inadequately defined. Each individual case is discussed by the panel, within the framework published in the annual Pesticide Incident Report, until there is consensus. Details of these discussions are not directly relevant to the panel objectives and not recorded.
	Where, as in the case highlighted, incidents involve more than one person alleged to have been made ill, each individual case is assessed independently. Where the individuals receive a different assessment by the panel, the overall incident is classified according to the most serious individual assessment. It is categorisation of the incident that is of specific importance in enabling the panel to meet its primary objective and in this case the panel assessed the incident as "confirmed".

Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel case 01/008/03 was classified as "insufficient information" when the complainant had collected plant and soil samples, informed the Health and Safety Executive of this and contacted her general practitioner in writing asking him to record her symptoms in her medical notes.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The objective of the Pesticide Incident Appraisal Panel and the principle of case assessment were set out in my Written Answer on 24 January 2005 (WA 141).
	Individual cases will be categorised as "insufficient information" where there are no data properly to assess either the exposure (including an unknown formulation, no clear route of exposure, or unavailability of known documents) or the ill health (including inadequately defined symptoms, and unavailability of known medical reports). Each individual case is discussed by the panel, within the framework published in the annual Pesticide Incident Report, until there is consensus. Details of these discussions are not directly relevant to the panel objectives and not recorded.
	The panel assessment is dependent on the availability of relevant information. Where the panel has knowledge that such information exists it will make every effort to obtain it. In the case of the incident highlighted, the information described in the question—the soil samples and GP notes—was not brought before the panel for consideration.

Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What contraventions of regulations were found and what regulatory action was taken by the Health and Safety Executive in relation to all incidents involving sulphuric acid, investigated by the Health and Safety Executive's field operations director in 2003–04.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The HSE does not routinely record contraventions of regulations unless enforcement action has been taken. One prosecution covering two alleged contraventions of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 (as amended) is pending as a result of the incidents involving sulphuric acid investigated by HSE during the year 2003–04.
	From April 2003 to March 2004, HSE investigated five incidents involving sulphuric acid used in agriculture where allegations of ill-health from exposure had been made. A further 11 incidents were investigated where sulphuric acid, used as a pesticide, had been involved in allegations of other types of harm.

Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which primary school in which education authority is referred to in the Pesticides Incident Appraisal Panel incident 20/065/03 which involved sulphuric acid.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The primary school referred to in the Pesticide Incident Appraisal Panel incident 20/065/03 was Cellardyke Primary School, St Andrews Road, Anstruther, Fife. Since the alleged incident it has merged with Anstruther Primary School. The education authority is Fife Council.

Poverty

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the weekly income thresholds, both before housing costs and after housing costs, against which they have determined that the proportion of working age adults on absolute low incomes is at its lowest since 1996–97; and
	How many working age adults were in absolute poverty in each year for which figures are available; and
	What are the weekly income thresholds, both before housing costs and after housing costs, which determine the numbers of working age adults living in absolute poverty in each year from 1979.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Poverty is about more than low income; it also impacts on the way people live—their health, housing and the quality of their environment. The sixth annual "Opportunity for all" report (Cm 6239), published in September 2004, sets out the Government's strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion and presents information on the indicators used to measure progress against this strategy.
	Further information regarding low income is available in Households Below Average Income 1994/95-2002/03. Copies of the publication are available in the Library.
	The most commonly used measure of "absolute" low income is the percentage of individuals living in households with incomes below 60 per cent of 1996–97 national median income—that is, an income level which has been held constant in real terms.
	Information regarding numbers of working age adults in low income is in the table.
	The number and proportion of working-age adults living in households with incomes below 60 per cent median held constant in real terms.
	
		
			  Before Housing Cost  After Housing Cost  
			  Number (million) PercentageFamilyExpenditureSurvey(UK) Number (million) Percentage 
			 1979 6.0 19 6.7 22 
			 1981 7.1 22 7.7 24 
			 1987 6.4 19 7.4 22 
			 1988–89 5.8 17 6.5 19 
			 1990–91 5.6 17 6.6 20 
			 1991–92 6.0 18 7.2 21 
			 1992–93 6.0 18 7.4 22 
			 1993–94 5.5 16 6.9 20 
			 1994–95 5.1 15 6.7 20 
			 1995–96 5.1 15 6.8 20 
		
	
	
		
			  Before Housing Cost After Housing Cost   
			  Number (million) PercentageFamilyResourcesSurvey(GB) Number (million) Percentage 
			 1994–95 5.3 16 7.0 21 
			 1995–96 5.0 15 7.0 21 
			 1996–97 4.9 15 6.8 21 
			 1997–98 4.7 14 6.4 19 
			 1998–99 4.4 13 6.2 18 
			 1999–00 4.1 12 5.9 17 
			 2000–01 3.8 11 5.4 16 
			 2001–02 3.3 10 4.8 14 
			 2002–03 3.3 10 4.6 13 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. Family Expenditure Survey (FES) figures are for the United Kingdom.
	2. Family Resources Survey (FRS) figures are for Great Britain.
	3. The reference period for FRS figures is single financial years. FES figures are single calendar years from 1979–87, two combined calendar years from 1998–89 to 1992–93 and two financial years combined from 1993–94 to 1995–96.
	4. Income definitions differ slightly between the two series.
	For all FRS years 1994–95 to 2002–03, the level of absolute low income was estimated as £166 per week for the before housing costs (BHC) measure, and £142 for the after housing costs (AHC) in average 2002-03 prices after adjustment for inflation, and was estimated using reported values from respondents to the 1996–97 FRS.
	The estimated equivalent level for all FES years was £168 per week BHC, and £143 per week AHC, in 2002–03 prices, and was estimated using results reported from the 1995–96 and 1996–97 FES.
	Over the period 1979 to 2002-03, the proportion of working-age adults experiencing low income using this measure was at its lowest in 2002–03 both BHC and AHC. The statement is true for other thresholds of median and mean income, with the exception of the 40 per cent mean threshold BHC, for which there was a slight, although not statistically significant, increase between 2001–02 and 2002–03. However low-income levels on this threshold remained lower in 2002–03 than in the mid to late nineties.

Advisory Council for the Education of Romany and other Travellers

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why no reply has been sent to a letter of 23 July 2004 addressed to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills from Mr David Cannon, chair of the Advisory Council for the Education of Romany and other Travellers, or to the reminder from the Lord Avebury of 29 December 2004; and whether they will apologise to Mr Cannon for the delay.

Lord Filkin: Mr Cannon's letter dated 23 July was unfortunately mislaid within the department. A letter of apology and full response was sent on 29 January. There was a further delay in responding to Lord Avebury's letter of reminder of 29 December due to a backlog of invitations following the appointment of the new Secretary of State. A letter of apology was also sent to Lord Avebury on 29 January, enclosing a copy of the letter sent to Mr Cannon.

Kyoto Protocol

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they are taking to ensure that aspirations of the Kyoto Protocol are achieved; and what action they are initiating to engage the international community in the reduction of global warming beyond 2012.

Lord Whitty: The UK Climate Change Programme focuses on policies and measures across all sectors to meet our Kyoto target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012, and move towards our domestic goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010.
	Provisional estimates show that greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 14 per cent between 1990 and 2003, and are projected to be 21 per cent below by 2010. We are comfortably on track to meet our Kyoto target.
	The Prime Minister has made climate change a priority for our presidencies of the G8 and EU this year. The G8 presidency is already underway and we are hoping to make progress in building on climate change science, technology and on engaging countries with growing energy needs such as India and China.
	The UK was particularly instrumental in the negotiations at the Tenth Conference of the Parties in Buenos Aires in December; we helped to establish consensus on an adaptation package for developing countries, and agreement was also reached on holding a seminar in May to begin to look at what the international community would like to see happen after the first Kyoto Protocol commitment period ends in 2012.

Fly-Tipping

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Whitty on 10 January (WA 17), what action the Environment Agency takes when dealing with a fly-tipping incident; why the prosecution percentage has fallen from 7.2 per cent in 2000 to 4.7 per cent; and whether they have any plans to improve results by changing the system.

Lord Whitty: The Environment Agency (the agency) responds to specific incidents of fly-tipping. The agency and the local government association have agreed the "fly-tipping protocol" that sets out the respective roles and responsibilities of the agency and local authorities. The agency will respond to incidents: of a large scale, that involve organised crime of containers of hazardous waste. They may also intervene if the illegally dumped waste is causing water pollution or a flood-risk.
	The agency response may consist of one or more of a number of elements, depending on the incident. These elements include: investigation, clear-up and the serving of notices for the removal of waste and enforcement action, including prosecution.
	The fly-tipping protocol is currently being updated and Defra is drafting statutory directions to the agency and waste collection authorities under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 to ensure fly-tipping is dealt with effectively.

Pilotage Exemption Certificates

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Who is responsible for monitoring and enforcing the operation of the marine pilotage exemption certificates.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Competent harbour authorities are responsible for the issuing and operation of pilotage exemption certificates.

Pilotage Exemption Certificates

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In respect of each competent harbour authority, what offences have been committed relating to pilotage exemption certificates; and how many convictions there have been in the last five years.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Government do not hold records relating to marine pilotage exemption certificates.

Port Marine Safety Code

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the terms of reference of the Marine and Coastguard Agency's review of the port marine safety code; which ports have been found to be non-compliant; and when the final report will be published.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is not reviewing the port marine safety code, and no report is due to be published. However, the agency is working with port authorities on compliance assurance issues on an ongoing basis.

English Channel

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Who is responsible for informing the authorised pilots operating within a competent harbour authority about any adverse shoal depths discovered, following a survey of the English Channel.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Harbour authorities are responsible for publishing appropriate hydrographic information, including warnings on recently identified navigational hazards, for the area within the harbour.
	Waters, such as the English Channel, outside the jurisdiction of the competent harbour authority are surveyed according to arrangements agreed through the Civil Hydrography Programme. Survey areas are prioritised using a risk assessment methodology.

Sustainable Transport

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why grants for sustainable transport by rail and water for 2007–08 have been reduced from a total of £60 million, as set out in the European Commission's State Aids Clearance document of December 2003, to some £25 million as stated in the Government's sustainable transport press release on 1 February.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The figures quoted by the commission described the ceiling on annual support for modal shift schemes in England, Scotland and Wales. Support within this ceiling received state aid clearance; the figures did not represent a commitment by government to provide a particular level of support. The indicative allocation for the sustainable distribution fund in 2007–08 reflects in part the fact that the Government's current commitments on rail freight spending will be complete by the end of the preceding financial year. We start again with a new pot of money in April 2007, and new state aid clearances will be needed to continue some of the schemes funded through the pot. Spending levels beyond this will be set in SR2006.

Sustainable Transport

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What ongoing support for Channel Tunnel rail freight is budgeted for in the £25 million budget for sustainable transport support as stated in the Department for Transport's press release of 1 February.

Lord Davies of Oldham: We are negotiating with EWS(I) to extend our agreement with them until the expiry of the minimum usage charge commitment on 30 November 2006. The minimum usage charge commitment is not included in the budget for the sustainable distribution fund. No decision has been taken about support for Channel Tunnel rail freight beyond the expiry of the minimum usage charge commitment.

EU Rail Policy

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which departments will be responsible for representations on railway safety regulation in respect of European Union rail issues.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Department for Transport will continue to have lead policy responsibility for the UK Government on all European rail policy matters, including railway safety regulation. It will continue to exercise that function in close consultation with other government departments.

West Coast Main Line

Lord Inglewood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Davies of Oldham on 8 February (WA 110-111), whether the extended journey times currently in force on the West Coast Main Line are acceptable.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The department considers that the journey times currently in force on the West Coast Main Line in order to upgrade the line, and where replacement bus services are provided temporarily during works, are acceptable given the extensive work being carried out to modernise the line.

Cross-Channel Ferry Services

Lord Dykes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will discuss with maritime transport representatives in the United Kingdom and France the options for new investment in cross-Channel ferry carriers between Newhaven and Dieppe.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The provision of cross-Channel ferry services, and decisions about investment in those services, are matters for the ferry companies themselves.